For what it is worth, I would prefer that simulavrxx proper could be
used, even if it was just built as an separate executable along with the
full-up code. This is one point of view of course.
I also however know that libbfd is a pain for us the way we use it
becuase over time it changes in ways we often don't care about, but
cuases trouble for our simulavrxx users who have to cause it to be built
and installed...then simulavrxx has to find and use it x-p
I'm pretty sure one of my build clean-up activities should include just
including a suitable version of libbfd sources in simulavrxx and
dispense with the special build requirements we have today. Hence I'm
actually contemplating doing just what you did. (and I've been told this
is a wrong approach too ;-p )
So in the end I say, more power to you. Thanks for posting. The free and
open communication certainly is in the spirit of FSF and OSS. It's all
good.
BTW: Where would you host your new tool? For my own information, how do
you use it in conjunction with the GCC testsuite? Feel free to take this
part offline or ignore if you prefer.
:-)
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 23:15 +0000, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Now, I don't mind at all discussing technical merits of the idea,
> especially if I can show my own code to use as a counter argument. So,
> I was trying to delay my replies (including the reply to Joerg Wunsch)
> to a point where I could show some code instead of the natural
> handwaving that these kinds of discussions inevitably degenerate into.